Jesus Himself admitted that He spoke in parables not with the intentions of mystifying, but to preserve Himself until the time was right.

Before the time of Jesus, Like Him, Confucius also spoke in parables.

During about the same time as Confucius, within the confines of his palace, The Buddha was lied to all his life about a paradise that never existed until one day, much by accident, he ventured to walk out an unguarded door into a real world of the sick, the freak, the elderly, and the malnourished.  Because of the trauma he suffered, he insisted on being retaught everything!  As a result, The Buddha concluded that one should remain unborn.  For you see, in this way, the people could then avoid being reincarnated back into life as the sick, the freak, the elderly, and the malnourished.  Problem is, as the Buddha was reincarnated from a man into a man, the words spoken by The Buddha were supposed to be held as coming straight from God Himself.  The implications being, as it stood back then, the Hindu religion should have been put to death by being placed back into the womb.  But the Hindu religion rebelled and, thus, still remains today.  

Later in ancient Greece, as the incredibly brave Socrates hid his subversive intentions by rarely ever elaborating on them, choosing to ask endless inductive questions instead, Plato achieved a level of subversiveness himself by writing dialogues which never concluded.  Instead, he included the "dialectic" teaching method of Socrates and his own truth engine he referred to as "the theory of the forms" as always being the main ideas, the hidden thesis statements, and conclusions in every dialogue.

Ponder on that for a second.

Aristotle himself was later accused of impiety just as Socrates had also been accused of it, with the latter choosing death over banishment from Athens.

In the past, the big beat up the small just as, in the business of meanness, knowing was the same as beating you.

As the Apostle Paul had to minister while running for his life, writing letters to the local churches in the process, later on, the Apostle John had to write the Book of Revelation in code so as to hide its true meaning so that it wouldn't be altered or scrapped altogether by the pagan Romans.

To give one example, when he wrote Holy, Holy, Holy, the Apostle John actually meant the Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

As we all know, as Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic Church in committing blasphemy against, not the books of the Holy bible, but against Aristotle, the same was true of the Protestant Catholic Martin Luther in his efforts to allow the bible to be read in another language other than Latin.

Sir Isaac Newton had to hide the fact that he was an alchemist as well as a physicist.  For, you see, alchemy played the part of chemistry of that time as alchemists searched for and threatened to find out a way to turn other minerals into gold.  For in finding out how to do so, the increase in the amount of gold would have brought down its price for those who held it in abundance.

Later, the early Puritans had to be subversive to the State Church of England.

John Locke had to write his two treatises in secret admitting to them in his will only after his death.

Even when they were gathering together to write the Declaration of Independence to create a whole new order in order that they could rightfully divorce the people out from under tyranny, our Founding Fathers had to do so subversively.

The point I am making here is that true education has always been subversive, exists today as subversive, and has to be subversive.  What stands against this subversive education is legal precedence which amounts to nothing.  Or, meditate on it again.  If lawyers are the ones who certify, sanction, and deem official every expertise, as they only know about the law, and as law for the sake of the law amounts to nothing, then, over time, our expertise will become less than nothing as there will surely have been a law past against them.

Again, the one and only mandate for the American people has, is, and will always be for limited government.

If lawyers have to be the ones who deem our expertise as official, then the less government of them we have, the more true expertise we will possess.